Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20240710REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024 Interim Chairperson Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, and Charlie Tarver. Absent were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick, Jeffrey Halferty and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: None COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Surfas inquired about a large outdoor refrigerator outside the new Wild Fig restaurant. Mr. Hayden noted that while it was in the historic district, this was not a designated historic property. He said that he would look into what was being installed to make sure it complied with what was approved. Ms. Pitchford asked about the Boomerang. She noted that the building is clearly deteriorating. She knew that the City took some action there, but all she can see is that they put up a fence. Mr. Hayden noted that he advocated for taking down the screening on the fence so that people could have eyes on the building. He said that the owners were on track with their repairs. Ms. Johnson noted that the City had taken action against them in Municipal Court to fix the issues. She said that there had been many engineering site visits and there were not a lot of concerns with the structural integrity of the building. She noted that while the owners had applied for a repair permit, she did not believe that the building would look any different aesthetically once the repairs were complete. Ms. Pitchford asked if the building could sit there as is for the next 50 years. Ms. Johnson said that as long as they maintain the structural integrity, yes. She said that there is no obligation by the property owner to occupy or develop it. Then Ms. Pitchford asked about the Crystal Palace building. She noted that it had been made tidy from the outside, but wondered if they could just let it sit. Ms. Johnson noted that they do have a building permit and that work is being done on the interior. Mr. Tarver asked if Historic Preservation staff were staying on top of the Boomerang Lodge. Ms. Johnson said yes. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None STAFF COMMENTS: None CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024 CALL UP REPORTS: None SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item. NEW BUSINESS: 117 North Sixth Street - Minor Development - PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jake Ezratty – Brikor Associates; Monty Earl Mr. Ezratty started by handing out a few materials related to their request. He stated that they are representing the Tolk’s who have some concerns about the historic structure on their historic structure. They believe the roof needs replacing but are concerned with replacing it with the exact same material due to fire hazard and structural issues. They felt it would be better to use a metal material as a replacement as it is lighter and promotes snow to slide off. He noted there was a letter from the engineer in the packet. Mr. Earl noted that a lot of these types of historic roofs in town had survived the snow loads because they were not insulated. He also noted that once the building is insulated the snow will build up, which is why they were proposing a metal roof. He also referenced the increased risk of wildfires and the fire hazard that wooden roofs pose. He noted that metal is a common roofing material throughout town, and he listed some of its sustainability benefits. Ms. Raymond asked when the house was built. Ms. Pitchford said that in staff’s report it notes that it was built in 1885. Mr. Moyer asked if a fully installed metal roof weighs more than a wood shingle roof. The applicants said a metal roof would be lighter. Mr. Moyer asked if the current structure supporting the existing shingled roof in good condition. Mr. Earl said they were not completely sure as the building had not been opened up since a remodel in the 1990s. Ms. Raymond asked what the Class A roof assembly would be for the proposed metal roof. Mr. Earl detailed that assembly. Mr. Ezratty explained that more underlayers were required on a Class A wood shingle roof assembly which would add more weight than what is currently there. Ms. Surfas asked why they were wanting a lighter weight metal roof, as the engineer’s letter presented to them mentioned that there were no obvious structural issues with the house. Mr. Earl said the while there may not be any obvious issues, the engineer was not able to fully inspect the structure as it was not opened up. He also reiterated the snow load concerns. Mr. Tarver asked whether they had looked at using synthetic wood look shingles. Mr. Earl said he was not aware that those were allowed. Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden started his presentation by describing the structure and its location and noted that he believed the location, form and style of this historic resource make the roof a particularly prominent and defining feature. He showed a few pictures of neighboring structures and noted that there was a variety of shingled roofs in the area. He said that as far as he could tell the structure had always had a wood shingled roof. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024 Mr. Hayden went over the historic design guidelines, pointing out guidelines 7.7, 7.8, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6 as described in the staff findings portion of the agenda packet. He detailed why staff found these guidelines to be not met as spelled out in the agenda materials. As a result, Mr. Hayden said that staff’s recommendation is denial of this application. Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Hayden if the existing shingled roof on the non-historic structure was to stay the same, would his opinion stay the same regarding changing from wood to metal on the historic structure. Mr. Hayden said no, as there are elements of the non-historic structure that use metal roof materials and that the intent of guidelines 7.7 and 7.8 is to maintain the historic character of the historic resource. Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Hayen if he could speak to the fire protection aspects. Mr. Hayden noted that fire protection issues were not addressed in the applicant’s proposal and that some flexibility had been created in the guidelines to take fire protection into account, allowing for the use of alternative materials. Mr. Earl noted that the metal roof on the breezeway of the non-historic structure was a galvanized zinc and silver in color. They believed that the proposed black standing seam metal for the historic resource would be considered the separation of materials. Mr. Ezratty mentioned that their main concern is the longevity of the structure as a whole. He reiterated their concerns with adding more weight with a Class A shingled roof assembly. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Ms. Raymond started the discussion by recognizing the fire issues and noted the recent discussions by HPC regarding alternate shingle materials that could be used. She thought that this particular building may not be the best application for a metal roof and referenced the other composite materials out there that look more like wood shingles and would better meet the guidelines. She said that the perceived structural issues did not hold a lot of weight in her mind as the building has stood for over 100 years and we do not get as much snow as we used to. She understood the need to preserve the building from fire. Ms. Surfas thought the applicant was conflating two issues…the fire issues and the structural integrity. She wondered which was the real concern. From what she could tell, there was no reason for a lighter weight roof other than the applicant thinking it was needed. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Raymond and said that her main concern was related to guideline 7.7 to maintain the historic character of the historic roof. She thought putting a metal roof on the structure would change the character. Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Hayden to clarify that a historic structure that originally had a metal roof can replace it with metal and a historic structure without a metal roof originally can’t. Ms. Johnson noted that “can’t” is too strong of a word because they were dealing with guidelines and not rules. She said that it is about evaluating the historical character of structure and the likeness of materials that are being proposed. She noted that there is no historical context that there was a metal roof. Mr. Tarver also noted that there were non-metal roofing materials that were fire retardant available. Mr. Moyer said that he agreed with staff primarily on guideline 7.7. Ms. Johnson noted that a denial from HPC would mean the applicant would not be able to reapply with a substantially similar proposal for one year. She said that what HPC has suggested in the past is for the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024 applicant to either withdraw the application or request a continuance to reevaluate their proposal in order to avoid a denial. She said that it was ultimately up to the applicant. Mr. Ezratty asked about the recent changes to the guidelines regarding flexibility in materials. Ms. Johnson explained that it allowed for metal roofing to be a possibility but did not change how HPC was supposed to evaluate metal roof proposals. She further explained the applicant’s options here. Mr. Earl asked what the process would be if they proposed replacing the roof with the exact same materials as exist now. Ms. Johnson said that it would not have to come before HPC in that situation. There was some continued discussion of the applicant’s options for withdrawal or continuance. MOTION: Ms. Raymond moved to continue this hearing to September 11th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Surfas seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk